Sigh. It’s a slippery slope, but if we hadn’t deposed Saddam this journalist wouldn’t even exist, much less be able to get away with that.
I don’t agree with the reasoning or the launch of the war, but Reagan wasn’t Sadaam Hussein.
Tell that to the Nicaraguans.
Yeah, but the difference is, Saddam didnt authorize the CIA to sell columbian cocaine in his own country to help pay for his illegal wars. And he didnt sell any weapons to Iran, either. Of course, Saddam didnt have to, because he got his chemical weapons directly from Rumsfeld, too.
Former State Department official William Blum calls the 1980’s CIA actions in South America in the 80’s an “American Holocaust.” Some sources state that some 63,000 Salvadorians were murdered or tortured during reagan’s presidency.
The bigger difference being Reagan didn’t have Rape Rooms where Michael Reagan would rape, torture and murder women.
Equating Reagan and Hussein in any shape, way or form = Fail.
Saddam was not the most evil leader in the world. But let’s not forget, that Saddam was a bad man was NOT why we invaded Iraq…....we did it because of “WMDs”........an outright and premeditated lie foisted upon the American people by our own president.
If Bush would have said “we need to go to war with Iraq because Saddam is a bad guy” he would have been laughed out of office.
Agreed, but the crux of my point remains solid.
Incidentally, who would qualify for the most evil leader in the world?
Agreed, but the crux of my point remains solid.
Incidentally, who would qualify for the most evil leader in the world?
I suppose the “crown of ultimate evil” would usually be worn by one of the “warlords” who commit genocide on a large and repetitive scale or by the leaders of terrorist groups. Occasionally it would be worn by one of the “captains of industry” who quietly destroy countless lives in the name of profit, or even by some of our supposed friends like the Saudis.
Agreed, but the crux of my point remains solid.
Incidentally, who would qualify for the most evil leader in the world?
I suppose the “crown of ultimate evil” would usually be worn by one of the “warlords” who commit genocide on a large and repetitive scale or by the leaders of terrorist groups. Occasionally it would be worn by one of the “captains of industry” who quietly destroy countless lives in the name of profit, or even by some of our supposed friends like the Saudis.
Sigh. It’s a slippery slope, but if we hadn’t deposed Saddam this journalist wouldn’t even exist, much less be able to get away with that.
I don’t agree with the reasoning or the launch of the war, but Reagan wasn’t Sadaam Hussein.
Tell that to the Nicaraguans.
Your comparisons are still fallacious. Seriously, compare the records and actions of Reagan and Hussein and tell me what’s similar and what’s glaringly different.
No they aren’t. I lived in Nicaragua for a while, and I knew a few Sandinistas who saw the effects of Regan’s interventions in their country firsthand. Regan’s policies and mercenary thugs killed lots of people who disagreed with the American angenda, journalists included. Unarmed aid workers, too, for that matter. And that doesn’t even count his backing for El Salvadoran death squads. That’s not conspiracy theory stuff—it’s all quite real.
But since Regan didn’t do any of that stuff in America itself, he gets a pass? Not in my book.
The actions of our less than honorable leaders, and the tyrants of other nations, are not as different as many would like to think. One gets their hands dirty directly, the other has someone else do the dirty work for them. Neither behavior is acceptable.
I think Reagan has done more long term harm to more people worldwide (through his “economic revolution” alone) than Saddam did, although Saddam’s crimes are more obvious, more visible, and impossible to justify with the doublespeak, spin, and widespread propoganda employed by corrupt western elites.
Sigh. It’s a slippery slope, but if we hadn’t deposed Saddam this journalist wouldn’t even exist, much less be able to get away with that.
I don’t agree with the reasoning or the launch of the war, but Reagan wasn’t Sadaam Hussein.
Tell that to the Nicaraguans.
Your comparisons are still fallacious. Seriously, compare the records and actions of Reagan and Hussein and tell me what’s similar and what’s glaringly different.
No they aren’t. I lived in Nicaragua for a while, and I knew a few Sandinistas who saw the effects of Regan’s interventions in their country firsthand. Regan’s policies and mercenary thugs killed lots of people who disagreed with the American angenda, journalists included. Unarmed aid workers, too, for that matter. And that doesn’t even count his backing for El Salvadoran death squads. That’s not conspiracy theory stuff—it’s all quite real.
But since Regan didn’t do any of that stuff in America itself, he gets a pass? Not in my book.
again, I’m gonna have to agree with steve, here. As much as i appreciate bob’s perspective, I think he spends too much time on right wing blogs, or perhaps in the military, to see this clearly.
If you look at CIA intervention in south america, or the middle east, just since the end of ww2, you could count up the atrocities and run out of fingers, toes, your friends fingers and toes… And quite a few nicarauguan fingers and toes. The notion that only “foreign” leaders (many of whom are/were US allies) are guilty of “evil” is absurd. US foreign policy has been responsable for potentially millions of deaths to innocent civilians and soldiers fighting for the same sovereignty that any american would fight on their land for.
My vote for most “evil"just from the last 100 years? Allan Dulles, Eisenouer, Truman.
I think it’s worth noting that Muntadhar al-Zeidi, the shoe-tosser, was beaten and perhaps tortured for his act. Maybe Saddam would have killed him outright, but we’re not exactly saints for letting the Iraqi government put the thumbscrews to a guy who was essentially insulting someone. Where’s the charitable American spirit of forgiveness and an appreciation for the freedom of speech?
We’re evil enough, just not as evil as Saddam when the world is watching.
I think it’s worth noting that Muntadhar al-Zeidi, the shoe-tosser, was beaten and perhaps tortured for his act. Maybe Saddam would have killed him outright, but we’re not exactly saints for letting the Iraqi government put the thumbscrews to a guy who was essentially insulting someone. Where’s the charitable American spirit of forgiveness and an appreciation for the freedom of speech?
We’re evil enough, just not as evil as Saddam when the world is watching.
If your source is that British paper, please note that they have zero evidence of that happening aside from his brother’s claims. Source, please.
